British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> A & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Oxfordshire County Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1235 (10 November 2016)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/1235.html
Cite as: [2016] EWCA Civ 1235
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF)
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
| THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF A & OTHERS |
Applicant |
|
| v |
||
| OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL |
Respondent |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr P Oldham QC (instructed by Oxfordshire County Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
- LORD JUSTICE IRWIN: This case constitutes an application for permission to appeal the judgment of Langstaff J given on 7 October 2016.
- The subject matter is a controversial decision by Oxfordshire County Council to reorganise its Children's Centres. Due to the pressure of time I am not going to try and set out a full account of facts in the course of this short statement of reasons.
- The essence of the decision that is challenged is that there was insufficient consultation of critical and obligatory matters, particularly the Public Sector Equality Duty, before the budget was set by the Council on 16 February 2016, and that when the Cabinet came to plan the detail of changes to the Children's Centres on the 23rd, although by then the obligatory consultations were present, they treated the planned cuts in the overall budget for Children's Centres in a figure of £6 million as being a constraint which in practice they could not break away from.
- The critical evidence of the way that matter was approached in the Cabinet Meeting of 23 February was dealt with by the judge in paragraphs 40 to 44. He relied heavily on the evidence of Councillor Tilley, who was the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Children, Families and Education. I do not repeat those passages from the judgment but it is clear that the judge relied on what she said as indicating not merely her own view that she was not constrained by the Medium Term Financial Plan and the proposed £6 million cut, but she but she did not believe that her colleagues on the Cabinet felt constrained.
- The principal point, it seems to me, advanced by Mr Wolfe, on behalf of the applicants, is that that is not a reliable piece of evidence and that the conclusion that the judge drew as to the approach of the Cabinet was not open to him properly on the evidence. Various authorities have been cited: R(Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1320, R(Fawcett Society) v Chancellor of the Exchequer [2010] EWHC 3522 (Admin) and R(JG) v Lancashire County Council [2011] EWHC 2295 (Admin).
- Reluctantly, I am persuaded that that is an argument which might succeed. If that argument might succeed, then it might be that the approach the judge then took could be disturbed on appeal. I am not going to give fuller reasons now because there is not time and this, after all, is permission only.
- I should record, so that all of those who are interested understand, that I think it is unlikely that this appeal will succeed but I cannot say that it is unarguable. Given the importance of the issue both to the parties and for the overall approach to such matters it seems to me on balance right to permit an appeal.
- I have also indicated that a time slot is available for hearing this rapidly. It is about as rapid as it seems to me could be managed because it is within the first week or so of December and there will be a degree of preparation needed, even though both counsel are fully familiar with the case, before the matter can be satisfactorily argued.